All posts by Foolocracy.com

Jester’s Court — November 27, 2013

The NSA intended to use online porn viewing habits of terrorist sympathizers to discredit them

The list of news agencies boycotting the use of official White House photography is growing, over what it says is an unprecedented lack of access to the president.

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis has introduced a bill to allow marijuana users to buy guns.

58% of Americans want to see Obamacare repealed; 54% believe that the problems plaguing it will be resolved.

California Rep. Darrell Issa’s “Obamacare hearings” are more of a propaganda show, despite what he claims.

In Pennsylvania, the former chairman of Montgomery County’s Republican Party was charged with drugging a female employee of his law firm and raping her while she was unconscious.

An Alabama commissioner claimed that his arrest was unwarranted. He says he couldn’t have wanted to have sex with a 15-year-old girl on Craigslist because he is impotent.

There’s going to be a recount in the Virginia attorney general’s race which was won by 165 votes out of 2.2 million.

An effort to put an initiative on the California ballot that wouldraise the minimum wage to $12 is being pushed by a billionaire conservative activist.

The Italian Senate has voted to oust Silvio Berlusconi from the parliament.

India’s nuclear scientists are dying.

Zimbabwe is moving ahead with banning foreigners from operating many basic businesses.

Angola bans Islam.

Richard Simmons said that the Obamas have “rejected” him.

Sasha Obama has had enough of this presidential stuff.

Obama Opponents, Baffled by Constitution, have a Plan to Deny Obama a Second Term

You are probably thinking, “Obama has been reelected. How can he be denied a second term?” That is because Barack Obama has not officially been reelected. The electors of the Electoral College must still meet in December to cast their votes. While that seems like a minor detail as the electors have never defected en masse to another candidate, those who hate Obama have devised a plan to save the republic.

Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, has a plan to deny Obama his reelection in the Electoral College. Straight from the opinion pages of the conspiracy-driven WND:

The 12th Amendment of the Constitution as well as Article II of the Constitution govern the Electoral College.

According to the 12th Amendment, for the Electoral College to be able to select the president, it must have a quorum of two-thirds of the states voting. If enough states refuse to participate, the Electoral College will not have a quorum. If the Electoral College does not have a quorum or otherwise cannot vote or decide, then the responsibility for selecting the president and vice president devolves to the Congress.

The House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate selects the vice president.

Since the Republicans hold a majority in the House, presumably they would vote for Mitt Romney, and the Democrats in the Senate would vote for Joe Biden for vice president.

Phillips calls this bats-in-the-belfry idea “totally constitutional.”

Let’s take a look at this. First, Phillips and others in the Tea Party often claim that they are trying to save the Constitution from its demise at the hand of socialists, liberals, moderates and even Republicans who have not drank their psychosis-induced tea. I’m assuming Phillips has read the Constitution, particularly the parts that he refers too, such as the Twelfth Amendment. Too bad he doesn’t understand it.

Here is what the Twelfth Amendment states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The highlighted section states that only a majority of the Electoral College is necessary. There is no need for a quorum because the states cast their electoral votes in their own state not Washington, D.C. The votes are counted there, but the only quorum needed is a majority (218) of the members of the House of Representatives. The two-thirds of the states quorum is when no candidate receives 270 electoral votes and the House of Representatives must decide the next president.

Phillips can embrace his nutty interpretation of the Constitution all he wants. However, unless a person is consumed by a deranged anti-Obama madness that precludes an ability to comprehend written English, no one is going to read the Twelfth Amendment the way Phillips does.

Earlier this year, when it was brought to Phillips attention that members of the Tea Party lacked a grasp of the Constitution on par with most many Americans, Phillips responded in this article from the Washington Times:

“I would love to see people with a stronger knowledge,” he said. “But I also understand what the reality of life is. If you’re worried about your job, if you’re worried about losing your home, things like that, honestly studying the Constitution is not going to be your top priority.”

He also said civics education has deteriorated, adding that he learned about the Constitution in ninth grade, but his daughter, who just completed that grade, did not.

Ninth grade civics course or not, I’m betting that Phillips’ daughter has a better handle on the Constitution than he does. Phillips has had a lot things to worry about with the reelection of Obama so “studying the Constitution” probably hasn’t been his top priority. It does sound like its time for him to take a nice long vacation somewhere so he can shake some of that stress. He needs to bring a copy of the Constitution too so that he can brush up on it before making a public fool of himself again.

Iran according to Mitt Romney

Romney’s Middle East

Foreign policy is Mitt Romney’s weak point. The debate last night proved that. Barack Obama won handily. Yet defeating an incumbent in a debate on foreign policy is a near impossibility. The experience and information available to a sitting president is invaluable.

All Romney needed to do is appear competent. He did that, but he took a relatively safe approach that was reminiscent of Obama in the first debate. Romney had more fire than Obama did in the first debate so he did not perform nearly as badly.

Obama got in some zingers on Romney, especially the “horses and bayonets” comment that went viral on Twitter. Yet Obama missed a clear chance early in the debate to knock Romney off balance. It would have forced an interesting explanation because I have no idea what Romney was talking about when he said:

“Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.”

Syria is Iran’s only ally but it is not their only route to the sea. It is not even a route to the sea. Iran has its own extensive coastline that borders the Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf (the name depends on whether one is an Iranian or an Arab).

Iran even presides over the vital Strait of Hormuz, a narrow gap where much of the world’s oil flows from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. Iran has threatened to close the Strait if it is attacked for its nuclear program. Being aware of this is a big deal.

Iran and Syria are not even contiguous. There’s a country, called Iraq, that sits between them. Romney must have heard of that nation.

I waited for Obama’s response to Romney’s statement but it never came. Both candidates have been fast and loose with facts and accusation during the debates, but this was one of the few times that an actual gaffe was made. Unlike most gaffes, which are slips of the tongue or mispronouncements, this one is a bit more disturbing. It is about geography and politics in the Middle East. Understanding both of those is important. I’m not so sure Romney does.

There are only a three logical explanations for this gaffe.

Route to the Mediterranean. Perhaps Romney was referring to access to the Mediterranean, which Syria borders and Iran doesn’t. Of course, that still doesn’t provide a route to the Mediterranean since Iraq is in the way. Iran can get to the Meditteranean by sending its ships through the Suez Canal, not an overland route through two countries.

Iran confused with Iraq. It would be downright scary if Romney has confused Iran with Iraq after a decade of our attention focused on that region. The man is a few votes from being President of the United States, and he isn’t sure where we fought a major war? Besides, Iraq has its own access to the sea by Kuwait.

Nerves. The third possibility is that he was trying to say something else but was so overloaded and nervous with facts and talking points that he blurted out a geographical impossibility. It was clear that Romney’s nerves were on edge this time with his constant wetting of his lips and swallowing.

However, the most disturbing part about Romney’s statement is that it wasn’t the first time he said that. The Guardian writes that he has done it at least five times before. That means his nervousness was not the problem. He actually believes it is true.

This misconception is almost as bad as Gerald Ford in the 1976 debates when he said that Eastern Europe was not under the domination of the Soviet Union. Someone needs to get Romney a map and straighten him out. His ignorance is not just embarrassing. It is dangerous.

Unfortunately, we will never know exactly what Romney was meaning. His advisers have had time to devise a way to deflect any questions that may arise. For Obama, he missed an opportunity to knock Romney off balance early. In the end, this debate has probably persuaded few people on how to vote.

Washington State Legislative Candidate Once Posed for Playboy but Photo Only Exposes Double Standards

Amy Biviano is running for state representative in the Spokane area. Just weeks before the election, the attention on the race has turned from the issues to a photo of Biviano in 1995. Back in 1995, Biviano was featured in Playboy’s “Women of the Ivy League.” At the time, Biviano was attending Yale.

The photo was released by The Western Center for Journalism, which criticized Biviano as a hypocrite for presenting an image “as a devoted wife and mother of two sons” and Sunday school teacher.

Biviano explained why it happened to The Spokesman Review:

In an interview Friday, following a conservative website’s disclosure that Biviano appeared in a “Women of the Ivy League” edition, Biviano said she doesn’t regret the photo shoot but wouldn’t do it again as a mother.

“It was one of the youthful college kinds of things. I was interested in pushing my limits,” Biviano said in an interview Friday. “This was my small act of rebellion.”

Biviano’s opponent, Matt Shea, expressed that he was saddened by the release of the photos that he claims to have known about for months. Yet in his comments from his website, Shea disingenuously condemns the photos while referring to the “pornography” as “alarming.”

I am saddened by the release by a national media outlet of my opponent’s involvement in pornography. I strongly condemn the release of this information. Our campaign was aware of this information several months ago, and made a very determined decision to not use or disperse this information in any way, shape, or form. I specifically instructed the few members of my campaign team who knew of this situation to not disseminate this information, engage in negative, personal attack campaigning, even though my opponent had already done so. This type of negative campaigning is exactly what is wrong with politics today. While these revelations are indeed alarming, my heart goes out to Amy and her family. My wife Viktoriya and I will continue to pray for her.

Yeh, I bet Shea is saddened. His comments are laddened with code words of disaproval while he tries to appear sympathetic to Biviano’s predicament.

Former state Rep. George Orr put the matter into perspective, noting that Shea faces misdemeanor gun charges. Shea pulled a gun during an altercation with another motorist last year. The incident was described as road rage.

“What’s worse, a woman going topless 15 or 20 years ago, or a guy pulling a gun on somebody? How can the Grand Old Party get upset about that when their rock-star senator from Massachusetts was a centerfold?” Orr said.

Orr is completely correct. Pulling a gun on someone a year ago is far more relevant than a nude shot nearly 20 years ago as a college student.

That reference to a “rock-star senator from Massachusetts” is directed at Scott Brown. Brown posed nude for the June 1982 issue of Cosmopolitan.

The photo of Brown stirred some interest in his 2010 campaign, but it did not hamper his election. Brown’s photo was more of a curiosity. He lost few, if any votes, over it.

Neither Biviano nor Brown are running from their revealing photos. They have not tried to hide it nor should they. Both magazine profiles are from many years ago. In the election of 2012, neither should matter. Yet how these two photos have garnered attention tells a lot about American society.

Brown’s photo is far more revealing than Biviano’s, but Biviano’s is partly blacked out. Obviously, Playboy didn’t black out the nipples, but the photo being circulated now has that.

Saudi Arabian culture forces women to cover themselves so that men do not lose control of their carnal desires and lust after women. That is the reason used, but that is only an excuse for suppressing women. It keeps them away from contact with strangers, confines them to their homes and enslaves them to the whims of a husband or male family member.

Western societies, particularly American society, should look at its own peculiarities too. In our own way, we have a bit of the Saudi thinking too.

It is perfectly fine for a man like Brown to show his entire bare chest. However, when a woman does it, her nipples must be covered. Yet Brown has nipples too, and they are in full view. The difference between Brown and Biviano are her mammary glands, but those aren’t covered. The Saudi’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice would be pleased that we keep our morality firmly inline with our sexism. After all, showing Biviano’s nipples would make the photo outright pornography and men might lose control of their inhibitions. For this, Biviano is a hypocrite or even a slut, but Brown — well, he’s just one of the boys, and it’s all good fun.

Are we that different from the Saudis? They impose a repression that is unimaginable to Americans, such as preventing women from driving. Yet they forbid men from seeing the female body features that they see on males (faces, hands, feet, etc.) It isn’t that much different when a woman’s chest is considered racy, but a man’s is ho-hum and there’s nothing to see here, move along, citizen.

I have yet to find anyone to give an explanation that justifies those double standards. Add in that Biviano is being called a “hypocrite” for what she calls “my small act of rebellion,” while Brown is considered a “rock-star senator.”

Invariably, this will hurt Biviano’s campaign. While it is true that there is hypocrisy here, it is not Biviano who is guilty of it.

Ukraine Considering Ban on SpongeBob, Teletubbies, Shrek because of Threat to Country’s Youth

Ukraine is making a serious bid to copy the moralizing policies of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its National Expert Commission for Protecting Public Morality has deemed that many popular children’s shows are a “real threat” to the country’s young people in a recently released study.

The Commission is delegated with the responsibility of examining the media and determining if it is compliant with the nation’s morality laws, which include prohibitions against pornography, religious hatred, homosexuality, and the promotion of smoking and alcohol.

The Commission had previously tried to ban “The Simpsons,” but that show passed the wholesome test. They did succeed in banning Sacha Baron Cohen’s film “Brüno” because of its “sexual perversions.”

Their current targets are shows like “Teletubbies,” “SpongeBob Squarepants,” “Family Guy,” “Futurama,” “Pokemon,” “Shrek,” “South Park” and Japanese anime.

What is so bad about these shows?

Psychologist Irina Medvédeva said in the study that after watching these shows, young children “pull faces and make jokes in front of adults they don’t know, laugh out loud and repeat nonsense phrases in a brazen manner.”

Never mind that young children who don’t even see these shows still laugh at jokes they don’t understand and “repeat nonsense phrases” all day long. For some reason, the commission is convinced that this behavior is caused by these children’s shows.

For example, the Commission’s report has determined that the Teletubbies create a “psychology of losers.”

“The Teletubbies deliberately aims to create subnormal (men), who spend all day in front of the television with their mouths open swallowing all types of information.”

The Teletubbies must be some powerful propaganda. Usually it is two, three and four-year-old kids who are watching it. Yet the Teletubbies are such a powerful force that they will remember it until the boys become men — subnormal men, that is.

According to the Commission, the other shows have their own degenerate effect on the country’s youth. Japanese anime is “sexist propaganda.” “Shrek” contains “sadism.” “South Park” has “reincarnation progaganda.” “SpongeBob” promotes “homosexuality.”

The Commission has decided that these shows are “aimed at the destruction of the family, and the promotion of drugs and other vices.” They feel that by allowing young minds to watch them, they will then be turned into “criminals and perverts.”

The Ukrainian commission sounds a lot like the Saudi Arabian Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The Saudis are about the most restrictive society on the planet in regards to “morality.” While the Saudis are not a theocracy like Iran, they are the closest thing too it. Ukraine is a Western democracy, although one with some severe problems in its political structure. Sure, it spent eighty years under communism, but that would explain opposition to these children’s shows as tools of capitalism, not because they create “criminals and perverts.”

None of these children’s shows are educational programs, but not every kid’s show can be “Sesame Street.” The opposition to these shows only emphasizes the fragile circumstances of post-Soviet Ukraine, which looks like it has plenty of extremists wanting to impose their personal morality on the nation.

Louisiana Congressman Foolishly Claims that Muslims have Exemptions from TSA Screenings

Louisiana Rep. Jeff Landry is in a tough reelection fight. Louisiana lost a congressional seat, forcing Landry to run against fellow incumbent and Republican Charles Boustany. Boustany has the backing of the Republican establishment. That left Landry being the Tea Party candidate, which he openly welcomed.

In a tough political race in Louisiana, easy targets are Muslims and Barack Obama. It is even an easier target when both can be mixed together, which is exactly what Landry has done.

Landry has taken a strong position against mandating that contraception be included in the health insurance policies of religious institutions. As Landry said during the Jay Sekulow Live radio show:

“This strikes at the very foundation of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, if we allow the federal government to violate this principle there is no limit to what the federal government can do thereafter.”

Opposition to contraception is one thing, but to claim that it opens the door to unlimited government powers is hyperbole. There remains quite a distance between mandating that contraception be included in a health plan and Stalin’s totalitarianism.

Nevertheless, Landry thinks that he sees hypocrisy:

“Down here in south Louisiana this is huge, this is very important to my constituency. I think the biggest problems that a lot of Americans are having out there is the hypocrisy of this administration. Remember, this is an administration who has no problem granting special status or waivers to Muslims as they go through TSA screenings. Look, as they believe that there is a need to grant them special rights as they go through the TSA screening based upon their religion, that’s fine, I’m ok with that. But then don’t turn around and attack Christians when they stand up and say ‘listen, we believe that the policies you’re putting in place violate our religious freedoms as well.”

There would be hypocrisy here, if it were true. The TSA does not grant exemptions to screening to Muslims. The TSA’s website makes it clear that a passenger can wear anything onto a plane from baggy clothing to a head covering but do not expect any special treatment. Instead, expect to be singled out for a more in-depth search.

Travelers can wear any type of clothing or head covering to the security checkpoint. If the officer cannot reasonably determine that the clothing or head covering is free of a threat item, individuals may be referred for additional screening.

If Muslims were really getting exemptions, the Council for American-Islamic Relations would not have issued a press release calling the screenings “invasive” and “humiliating.” CAIR did present a list of recommendation, but it did not seek to have Muslims opt out of the TSA process. Their main emphasis was to avoid the full-body scanners, which are deemed offensive. A lot of non-Muslims would agree. CAIR urged that in place of the body scanners pat-downs could be completed in private for Muslim women who felt uncomfortable with the security procedures.

So the exemption that Landry states is “ok” with him does not exist. There is not any hypocrisy. This is a bunch of political garbage from a candidate trying to present himself as better than his opponent to the voters. Instead of attacking a fellow Republican, Landry decided to turn his attention on Obama and Muslims because there are not many Obama supporters and Muslims who are going to vote for him.

Far more troubling in Landry’s comment is that he seems to be fine with religious exemptions for security measures. If there is ever a time that all people should be treated equally that time should be for matters of security.

In the meantime, passing around lies like this keeps myths about the TSA alive while adding fuel to the efforts to defeat Obama, regardless of the truth.

This will probably play well with Landry’s constituency in Louisiana because he is telling them what they want to hear. Unfortunately, it is just more of the same foolish political chatter that poisons what is left of honorable political campaigning.

Sex Tape Emerges in Bizarre Tale of California County Supervisor Nadia Lockyer

In one of the stranger developments in the personal lives of elected officials, former California Attorney General and current Treasurer Bill Lockyer finds himself in an embarrassing and convoluted personal scandal. The oddity in this is that the scandal is not of Lockyer’s doing but that of his wife.

Lockyer, 70, has held several elected positions since 1972. He married his wife, Nadia, 40, in 2003. She was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 2010 after Bill Lockyer transferred $1.5 million of his campaign funds for his wife’s campaign. This is an enormous sum for a county office. With that war chest, Nadia Lockyer cruisedto a 63% victory.

A few weeks after her election, Nadia Lockyer entered rehab for an alcohol problem. Bill Lockyer said that her alcohol problem only became apparent after she was elected. That is questionable since alcohol and drug abuse are long-term problems and rarely things that arise overnight.

While in rehab, Nadia Lockyer met Stephen Chikhani, who was also in rehab for a drug problem. At some point, they began a relationship that continued until at least February 2012. Both are now back in rehab, hopefully not at the same facility.

Their relationship became public a month ago when Nadia Lockyer called 911 from a motel room claiming that Chikhani attacked her. The San Jose Mercury News summed up the scene:

On Feb. 3, Lockyer’s world came crashing down around her in a Newark motel. At 2:40 a.m., she called 911 to report that she had been attacked by an alleged “ex-boyfriend,” causing head and neck injuries that required medical treatment. She had her 8-year-old son with her.

Questions immediately come to mind. If it is an ex-boyfriend, then what is he doing around her motel room in the early morning? And what is she doing meeting a guy with her 8-year-old son there?

Bill Lockyer also tried passed off the encounter as one with an ex-boyfriend, but he added that Chikhani was stalking her.

A sex tape has now surfaced, although it was quickly pulled off YouTube. It involved Nadia Lockyer and Chikhani. Apparently, Chikhani made it in case the relationship was broken off. NBC Bay Area reported on the next development:

Bill Lockyer saw both the tape, a string of text messages between his wife and the man, and some X-rated photos on her computer. He told authorities that she was being stalked by an ex-boyfriend in an attempt to get the two apart, but it became clear to investigators that Nadia and the man were in a consensual relationship, according to reports.

It is difficult to know if Bill Lockyer is deluding himself about what is going on or if he is simply trying to cover up a multi-layered scandal.

The encounter at the motel room in February has another side to the story as well. Chikhani has not been arrested and has claimed that he has never stalked Nadia Lockyer because their relationship is ongoing. He also said that she invited him to the hotel that night. Chikhani charged that Nadia Lockyer then attacked him for seeing other women. He also said they have remained in contact during the weeks since the motel night incident.

A lot of people must have seen this coming but perhaps not to this extent. Nadia Lockyer appears over her head in her position as a county supervisor. Her alcohol problem worsened with her campaign and election. She then began an affair that continued with an early morning meeting with her young son present. Amidst all this, Nadia Lockyer has lost weight and grown gaunt from her pre-election weight of around 120 pounds. Some of her friends have received texts from her noting that she was “in a downward spiral – in crisis.”

This has all the makings of something that could get a lot worse.

UPDATE: YouTube has removed the video.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Calls Obama Birth Certificate a “Forgery”

As if the Republican Party doesn’t have enough problems, now Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has determined through his cold case posse that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Despite those who brought the investigation to Arpaio, and most of those who took part in it, are political opponents of Obama, Arpaio has tried to present his investigation as fair.

Both Democratic and Republican officials in Hawaii’s public health department have confirmed Obama’s birth certificate as valid numerous times.

Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in this case, called for a criminal investigation because the documents are fake. He also seemed to express dismay that Hawaii did not cooperate, even though Maricopa County has no jurisdiction in Hawaii. Arpaio also expressed his doubts that Hawaii will conduct a “fair, honest, professional” investigation.

This entire presentation by Arpaio and Zullo should be exposed for the charade it is. One of the people who spoke at the presentation of this “evidence” of fraud was Jeromie Corsi. Corsi presented his case in the third section of the video embedded below. Corsi is a long time birther. He is closely aligned with World Net Daily. World Net Daily is a hotbed of birther activities that has kept this conspiracy alive. It is laughable that Corsi, who is an unrepentant birther, stated that he approached this with an open mind in search of the truth.

Some have pointed out that Arpaio is facing a federal investigation for civil rights abuses. He has plenty of reason to want political cover. Interestingly, Arpaio did not publicly state that Obama has committed a crime, but his investigation has supposedly found a person of interest in this supposed fraud. What Arpaio has done here is just enough to draw attention to the issue without really doing anything. The non-birthers in the Republican Party must want to bury their heads in the sand after listening to this garbage.

If this is the best that Arpaio can do as an investigation, it raises serious questions at how his department handles a real crime. This is simply surreal.

The embed includes a series of videos from the press conference. The question and answer session at the end is interesting as doubting reporters try to pin Arpaio into a corner. His response? I’m not accusing President Obama of anything. Someone else has committed fraud and a forgery.

Did I say surreal? It is worse than that. Arpaio is an embarrassment to the concept of justice.

Santorum: Obama is leading the Faithful to the Guillotine

As if there isn’t enough hyperbole in politics, now Rick Santorum is suggesting that Barack Obama is going to lead Christians to the guillotine. According to Santorum, once the God-given rights are taken away, then there is only the French Revolution.

Life was so sweet in pre-revolutionary France under Louis XVI. At least the people had the God-given right to eat cake. Too bad there wasn’t enough cake to go around.

Back to Santorum, this is one of those strange rants that he gets into every once in a while. He must still be politically drunk from his victories in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado.

“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

Orly Taitz Claims Victory in Birther Lawsuit — “I Won!!! I Won!!! I Won!!!”

Those birthers. They are so easy to please. Who would have thought that making them happy could be this easy? Living in a make believe world allows the imagination to believe in everything, even elusive victory.

Orly Taitz, queen of the birthers, filed a lawsuit in Georgia to keep Barack Obama off the primary ballot because he was born in Kenya or somewhere not in the United States. The birther case, completely meritless, has been disproven numerous ways. Nevertheless, the birthers persist in lawsuits and other attention-gathering acts.

As usual, Barack Obama’s lawyers sought to quash the lawsuit. However, Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia administrative court, refused the order to quash. Therefore, the trial date of January 26 is allowed to continue. Here is Judge Malihi’s ruling:

“In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States,” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony…[is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s presentation or presentation at a hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.”

Taitz went absolutely crazy with the news. Here is her headline:

I won!!! I won!!! I won!!! Judge Malihi ruled in my favor. Obama’s motion to quash my subpoena is denied! He has to appear at trial and present all the documents that I demanded to produce in my subpoena!

Taitz, who just wrote one of the longest headlines in internet history, then proceeds to attack all those who have doubted her over the last three years, including birthers. It appears the birther movement if fraught with internal strife as Taitz relates:

It has been 3 years of total nightmare, these people were like a pack of wild dogs attacking me and coming up with each and every accusation in the book. Now I am vindicated. My legal action is with merit.

After her obligatory criticisms of other birthers who doubted her, Taitz proceeds to recount what happened in a Georgia courtroom:

Barack Obama through his attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to quash my subpoena and all the other subpoenas. I was attacked yet again in this motion. Judge Malihi just issued an order. Motion to quash my subpoena was denied. Barack Obama, President of the United States will have to appear in court on January 26 and comply with my subpoena and produce all the documents, that I demanded.

Does this mean after giving his State of the Union address on January 24, Obama is going to pack up and head for Georgia? Hardly. It would make for some good theatrics to see the President there and watch Taitz try to cross-examine him.

While it is possible that Taitz may have found a birther judge, Malihi has been on the bench since 1995. I doubt that Malihi has drunk the birther Kool-Aid and is prepared to wash his career down the toilet.

A closer reading of Malihi’s order makes it clear that motion to quash was not dismissed on its lack of merits but the incompetence of Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski. No matter how ridiculous a lawsuit may be, the opposing side must still present its case. Jablonski failed to do that. Malihi even agrees with Jablonski that his court may not have any power to order the president to appear, but Malihi is simply stating, almost pleading, for some legal authority to hang his ruling on. It is rare for a judge to agree with one side in lawsuit when no evidence supporting that position has been given, but that is exactly what is happening here.

Declaring that he has not been “enlightened” with any evidence is a sarcastic remark clearly aimed in Obama’s direction. This still is a country with a rule of law. There has to be some legal precedent or evidence for any judge to make a ruling as significant as a quash. Malihi is right to embarrass Jablonski with a little sarcasm.

The President’s attorneys are probably working this weekend to get their facts in order. Of course, Obama could withdraw himself from the Georgia primary ballot as his nomination is secured and there are no other candidates on the ballot. That would be a fun way to play with the birthers, but it would only awaken this ridiculous controversy further. The one thing clear is that Obama is not going to appear in a Georgia courtroom on January 26 no matter how hard Taitz tries to believe it will happen.